Report: Restart Scheme extension qualitative research

Question 1

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

This report contains the findings of qualitative research on the extension of the Restart Scheme, resulting from interviews with Jobcentre Plus (JCP) staff and provider staff. The report provides supplementary evidence to the report from the commissioned evaluation of the Restart Scheme, published in May 2024.

Background

The Restart Scheme was launched in June 2021 and offers 12 months of intensive, tailored support to customers of Universal Credit who are in the Intensive Work Search regime delivered through contracted providers across 12 Contract Package Areas (CPAs) in England and Wales. Initially, the Restart Scheme was scheduled to run until June 2024, with the final participants completing in August 2025, but this was extended by two years to take referrals until June 2026, with final participants completing in August 2027.

Alongside the extension, some changes to the Restart Scheme were made, including widening the eligibility for referrals for those on UC from nine months to six months and the introduction of a Completer Summary document. The Completer Summary was introduced for any participants returning to JCP at the end of 12-months on the scheme, to be completed by the provider in collaboration with the participant and to be passed to the Work Coach as an outline of the participant’s time on Restart and to aid discussions on further support.

Methodology

Two waves of qualitative interviews were conducted across four sites in four different CPAs to explore the views and experiences of JCP staff and provider staff of the Restart Scheme since the extension. The interviews primarily focussed on the changes to eligibility and processes, although wider views on the delivery of the programme were investigated to add to evidence from the commissioned evaluation.

Main findings

Overall, JCP staff and provider staff were positive about the change of eligibility from 9-months to 6-months, highlighting the benefit of getting support to customers earlier while they are closer to the labour market.
Most JCP staff and provider staff had experience of customers who were eligible but whom they deemed unsuitable for referral to the programme, although estimates of the frequency with which this happened were mixed. The most common reason given by JCP staff for unsuitability was due to health conditions, while providers also cited health conditions and high ESOL needs or childcare requirements.
JCP staff and provider staff reported little noticeable change in the barriers and characteristics of participants since the extension. Although, some interviewees thought there was an increase in participants with health conditions and some provider staff thought that those referred at the 6-month point had more motivation and confidence than those referred at 9-months.
Several interviewees mentioned that participants were more likely to be awaiting an outcome of their Work Capability Assessment (WCA) at the 6-month point. This was seen to complicate referral decisions, as the outcome of the WCA may result in the participant leaving the programme. Participants usually remain on programme for the remainder of their time left on Restart, making it difficult for Providers to move them to outcome as they are not obliged to undertake any work-related activities and anything they may choose to do is voluntary.
JCP staff and provider staff suggested the Restart Scheme was less effective for participants with significant work barriers such as health conditions and participants with English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) requirements, while being more suited to those participants without significant work barriers who are closer to the labour market.
Most JCP staff and provider staff felt that the Completer Summary document was useful, however there were doubts raised about how well the process was working in practice. JCP staff said that the number of participants who could show them their Completer Summary when asked was low. Meanwhile, providers said participant engagement with the process was poor and they questioned whether Work Coaches received the document or used it.
Several JCP staff and provider staff said that having the Completer Summary sent directly from the provider to the Work Coach digitally would improve the process.
Some interviewees suggested that the handover process for participants returning to JCP from the provider could be improved by including a phone call or a face-to-face meeting between provider and Work Coach (either with or without the participant).
Most JCP staff and providers stated that the Restart Scheme was being delivered well in their local area. Several interviewees identified barriers that were common to their local area, for example poor transport and a high proportion of insecure work, but they said that Restart was able to work around these issues.
Few providers gave evidence of tailoring their support offer according to the local area, with most emphasising that support was tailored to the individual participants’ needs.
JCP staff had mixed views on how effective the Restart Scheme is in securing sustainable job outcomes, with most saying it was effective while others suggested it could be more effective. Some JCP staff said that barriers to employment primarily stemmed from the individual participant rather than the Restart Scheme and that getting sustained job outcomes depended on addressing these barriers.
Several JCP staff highlighted that in cases where participants did not get a job through the Restart Scheme, participation on the programme can help to improve participant mindset and move them closer to work.
Insecure or seasonal work was the most common barrier to sustained job outcomes identified by Provider Staff. Addressing individual factors, such as mindset or job preference, were also seen as important in ensuring a sustained job outcome.

Question 2

Acknowledgements

Accepted Answer

Many thanks to the JCP staff and provider staff who agreed to be interviewed for the research for giving their time and their insights.

In addition, the authors would like to thank Janet Allaker for her invaluable input and support, and to all those who helped with fieldwork: Lucy Allen, Lynne Astley, Alice Chandler, Sally Clarke, Adam Dawkins, Iman Ezidy, Aalisha Green, Maria O’Connor, Kaushika Patel, Leah Pawlik, Aniza Peel, Beth Pitcher, Shihab Rashed, Matthew Stevens, and Greta Todorova.

Question 3

Authors

Accepted Answer

Ian Briedis, Matthew Collins, and Sharone Sathian; all are Social Researchers at the Department for Work and Pensions.

Question 4

Abbreviations

Accepted Answer

Abbreviation In full

Abbreviation	Definition
CCR	Claimant Commitment Review
CPA	Contract Package Areas
DWP	Department for Work and Pensions
ESOL	English for Speakers of Other Languages
IWS	Intensive Work Search
JCP	Jobcentre Plus
TPL	Tender Performance Level
UC	Universal Credit
WCA	Work Capability Assessment
WSR	Work Search Review

Question 5

1. Introduction

Accepted Answer

Background

The Restart Scheme was launched by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in June 2021, as part of the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic through the ‘Plan for Jobs’. The programme was designed to provide intensive support for up to 12 months to long-term unemployed people, delivered through contracted employment providers. Covering England and Wales only, eight providers were commissioned to deliver across 12 contract package areas (CPAs). Contracted providers were responsible for offering coaching and support tailored to the needs of individual participants and the local area. Participants are referred to the scheme through their Jobcentre Plus (JCP) Work Coach, and it is a mandatory programme.

Initially, eligibility for referral to the scheme included those who had been on Universal Credit (UC) in the Intensive Work Search (IWS)^{[footnote 1]} regime for between 12 and 18 months at the point of being referred and had not spent any time in the last six assessment periods in ‘Working Enough’^{[footnote 2]} or ‘Light Touch - In Work’ groups^{[footnote 3]}. The eligibility criteria were later widened to all customers who had spent 9 months on UC IWS.

The Restart Scheme was scheduled to run until August 2025, with final referrals in June 2024. However, referrals to the scheme were extended by two years to June 2026, with the last participants completing in August 2027. Along with extension of the scheme some changes to eligibility and processes were introduced. These include:  

the eligibility criteria were expanded to those claiming UC for six months and in the Intensive Work Search (IWS) regime at the point of referral
the extension involved the introduction of Completer Summaries, which were intended to share more in-depth information from Providers on participants’ progress and remaining barriers to inform the Claimant Commitment review at 18 months 
the Job Outcome target^{[footnote 4]} was raised to 37% (rather than 36%, the current scheme Tender Performance Level (TPL)
the payment model reverted to a model that is 70% of the total contract value for Payment by Results and 30% for Delivery Fee

Research Aims

DWP commissioned an independent evaluation of the Restart Scheme, as it existed before the extension, which was published in May 2024. This new in-house research is intended to supplement the evidence in that report with respect to the changes made as part of the extension and further insights into the delivery of the programme.

This research aimed to explore the views of JCP staff and provider staff on several topics around the Restart Scheme since the extension, including:

what has been the impact of the change in eligibility from 9 months to 6 months on Universal Credit in Intensive Work Search regime?
what are the characteristics and barriers of Restart participants and have these changed since the extension?
is the length of the programme and frequency of participant engagement appropriate?
what changes to the support offer have providers made?
how well does the Completer Summary process work and how useful is it?
what works well and where could improvements be made to the handover process for participants returning to JCP from the provider?
how effective are the relationships between JCP and providers?
how effective is the Restart Scheme in addressing need in the local area?
is the Restart Scheme able to produce sustained job outcomes for participants?

Question 6

2. Methodology

Accepted Answer

This research consisted of two waves of qualitative, semi-structured interviews with Job Centre Plus staff and staff employed by providers contracted to deliver the Restart Scheme. Interview participants were recruited from four distinct local areas in four different Contract Package Areas (CPAs). JCP and provider management were asked by the research team to nominate staff who would have experience working on the Restart Scheme to participate. These staff members were then emailed directly by the research team to invite them to take part and to arrange interviews.

Wave 1 fieldwork took place in October 2024, around four months after the start of the extension, and comprised interviews with 14 provider staff and 12 JCP staff. Wave 2 fieldwork was conducted in June and July 2025, around a year after the extension, with 12 provider staff and 11 JCP staff interviews. Six participants (four JCP staff and two provider staff) interviewed in Wave 1 also took part in Wave 2, meaning the research gained the views of 43 individuals in total.

Each interview was conducted by members of the research team working in pairs, one taking the lead as interviewer and another as notetaker. Interviews were mostly conducted over Microsoft Teams and were around 60 minutes in duration, although a few interviews were completed face to face during site visits. Interviewers used a pre-prepared topic guide to guide the interview, which are included in Annex 2.

The report findings were produced using thematic analysis of the interview notes, undertaken by members of the research team.

This research used qualitative methods to explore the views and experience of JCP staff and providers in-depth. However, the fact that the sample size is small and taken from only a few sites mean that findings cannot be generalised across all areas in which the Restart Scheme operates.

In addition, when considering the findings it is important to bear in mind that responses are reflective of interviewees’ individual experience. Therefore, it is possible that interviewees may identify some patterns or trends that cannot be objectively verified by this research, but which could be instead due to natural variation in experience (for example, variations in claimant characteristics in Work Coaches’ caseloads).

It should also be considered that the research was undertaken by DWP staff, which has the potential to influence interviewee responses, for example to give the answer they believe DWP would consider ‘correct’. To minimise this possibility, it was emphasised to the interviewee that all responses would remain anonymous and that there were no incorrect answers.

Question 7

3. Findings

Accepted Answer

3.1 Referral Eligibility and Suitability

The point at which claimants are eligible for Restart changed from 9-months on Universal Credit to 6-months on Universal Credit with the extension, from 1 July 2024. This section looks at awareness of this change amongst Job Centre Plus staff and Restart provider staff, their views on the change, and their experience of assessing and dealing with questions of customer suitability.

Eligibility

Awareness of the change to eligibility from 9 months to 6 months was high across both waves of interviews, with only two providers staff in Wave 1 and one JCP staff in Wave 2 unable to identify the change when asked.

JCP staff in both waves reported that the eligibility criteria for referrals were clear, and most said that they were satisfied with the guidance and information available to them to assess referrals. Though, two JCP staff members in Wave 2 highlighted that using the guidance was too time-consuming, with one reporting that they were more likely to consult a colleague and the other mentioning that they struggled to find the guidance quickly in appointments.

Many JCP staff commented that the decision to expand the referral criteria from 9 months to 6 months was a good idea and could increase positive outcomes for participants. It was mentioned it was better to get support to get claimants back into work earlier and it was suggested that any barriers to work that the claimant has are unlikely to improve between the 6- and 9-month point. It was also noted that the longer someone is unemployed the harder it is to get work and that earlier support can help with motivation and confidence, which JCP staff said can drop the longer someone is out of work.

Some JCP staff mentioned that they would like the eligibility to be widened to include other groups, such as those working on zero hours contracts or in low-paid employment, or to take into consideration those who they though could benefit from being referred to the Restart Scheme earlier than at the 6-month point.

Although views on the eligibility criteria were mainly positive, some JCP staff questioned whether they were being required to refer claimants who they felt should not be eligible. In Wave 1 interviews, two JCP staff noted that the change in eligibility meant that they were referring more participants who had health conditions who would not have previously been referred as would be deemed ineligible. In addition, one JCP staff member in Wave 2 mentioned that providers and claimants were unhappy with the change in advice to start referring those on fit notes without work search requirements to Restart for work preparation, whereas previously these claimants would not have been referred to Restart. Another JCP staff member in Wave 2 felt that, by adhering to the eligibility criteria, they had to refer some claimants who they deemed unsuitable, such as those with low English language skills, whilst being unable to refer those who might be well placed to benefit but who did not hit the 6-month criteria. This staff member, and another, suggested that greater autonomy for Work Coaches on referral decisions would be preferable.

Whilst every provider staff member in Wave 1 stated that the eligibility criteria for referrals was clear, those in Wave 2 gave more mixed views with some saying it was clear and others that it was not. Some provider staff also suggested that they would like to widen the eligibility criteria to begin at 3 months. Across both waves, most provider staff were positive about the change in criteria from 9 months to 6 months, commenting that participants seen earlier are closer to the job market and so it is easier to find work, that they tended to have a better attitude and awareness that engagement was mandatory, and that motivation can drop by the 9-month point. Two provider staff in Wave 2 mentioned that they would like to see the criteria expanded further to begin referrals even earlier, for example at 3 months. However, echoing views expressed by some JCP staff, some provider staff across both waves suggested that the change in criteria may had resulted in them seeing more individuals who would previously have been deemed ineligible or unsuitable, such as those with health conditions or ESOL needs.

Suitability

Jobcentre staff said that whilst the eligibility criteria were clear, assessing the suitability of eligible customers was more difficult, such as around health conditions or customers with complex issues. Across both waves, most Jobcentre staff reported that they had experience of declining to refer eligible claimants that they deemed to be unsuitable, although several staff mentioned that they were more likely to defer referral. When asked about the frequency of unsuitable cases, estimates varied from rarely to frequently, with one outlier saying that they had never declined a referral and stuck only to the eligibility. Of those staff who commented, most reported that the frequency of unsuitable claimants had not changed since the change of eligibility with the extension, although some said it had increased.

The most common reasons JCP staff gave for having declined a referral were due to a claimant’s health conditions, that the claimant was already in employment, or that the claimant was awaiting the outcome of a Work Capability Assessment (WCA). Regarding the latter, several staff highlighted that claimants were more likely to be awaiting their WCA outcome around the 6-month mark and that they were reluctant to refer before the outcome in case it resulted in withdrawal from the programme.

JCP staff mentioned a number of other reasons for declining or deferring referrals, which illustrate the wide range of possible issues encountered by individuals eligible for referral to Restart. These reasons included:

bereavement
learning difficulties
homelessness
domestic violence
substance misuse
illiteracy
ESOL needs
in other training
complex cases encompassing several barriers

All provider staff interviewed, bar one (in Wave 1), reported having experience of referrals that they believed to be unsuitable. Views were mixed in terms of the frequency of receiving unsuitable referrals, with some saying occurrences were frequent whilst other said they were rare. Provider staff interviewed in Wave 1 mostly said that the frequency of unsuitable referrals had not changed since the extension began. Only one suggested it had increased, mainly due to health issues, and another reporting a decrease, which the latter put down to their organisation being better equipped to deal with a wider range of barriers. In contrast to Wave 1, most provider staff in Wave 2 who commented on the change in frequency of unsuitable referrals reported an increase. One interviewee in Wave 2 suggested that this may be due to the end of the Work and Health programme, rather than any issue related to Restart.

Provider staff gave many of the same reasons as JCP staff as to why they thought some referred participants were unsuitable for the programme, such as health conditions, awaiting the outcome of their WCA, already in employment, and high ESOL needs. In addition, provider staff mentioned childcare responsibilities, pregnancy, nearing retirement age, students entering or re-entering education, and cultural barriers to work (for example, for women in some cultures) as reasons for unsuitability. In some cases, unsuitability was seen as a result of participant disengagement owing some of these factors, for example participants being uninterested in finding work due to mental health problems, childcare needs or nearing retirement. In Wave 2, several provider staff suggested that the number of unsuitable referrals may be reduced by allowing greater autonomy for Work Coaches on referral decisions, for example greater flexibility defer referrals until a more suitable time for some participants (e.g. when childcare needs reduce).

In Wave 1, provider staff gave courses of action that they would follow when working with a participant that they deemed unsuitable. These included signposting or referring to other support for specific barriers such as mental health, ESOL needs, or substance misuse issues; working with JCP to discuss the best strategy; and use of sub-contractors and other partner organisations.

3.2 Characteristics of Restart Participants

This section covers JCP staff and provider staff views on any noticeable differences in the characteristics and barriers to work between participants referred at 6-months and those referred at 9-months, and also for which participants they felt the Restart Scheme was most and least effective.

Differences between participants referred at 6-months and 9-months

In both waves of interviews, JCP staff gave mixed opinions on whether they had noticed any differences in between participants referred at 6-months and those referred at 9-months, in terms of barriers, characteristics, engagement and closeness to work. Some JCP staff reported that there was little or no difference between the two groups, whilst others did identify differences.

Across Wave 1 and Wave 2 interviews, several JCP staff mentioned that there was an increase in the number of claimants with health issues or incomplete Work Capability Assessments^{[footnote 5]}, since the change of criteria in the extension. This meant that some claimants either ceased to be eligible for Restart before referral, or else left the programme on receipt of their WCA outcome. In addition, several JCP staff reported that claimants being referred at 6-months were closer to work and had more confidence and motivation than those referred at 9-months. It was suggested that the difference of the 3-month period seemed to be important in the change in mindset. From Wave 1 interviewees, there was some limited feedback that a participant’s barriers to work are more difficult to identify by the 6-month point, as they may not have been disclosed to the Work Coach yet.

Some other differences were mentioned by individual JCP staff members. In Wave 1, one respondent observed that, since the extension, there were more claimants who were in employment, and another noted that there were more participants with childcare needs, but this was highlighted as being due to issues with childcare provision in the local area. In Wave 2, one interviewee reported an increase in claimants with more complex needs, which made them unsuitable for Restart

Provider staff in both waves also gave varying response to the differences between participants referred at 6-months to those referred at 9-months. Similarly to JCP staff some reported they had not noticed any differences while some said they had. In Wave 1, the only difference mentioned by more than one respondent was that there were more young participants (under-25) since the extension, and this was also mentioned by one respondent in Wave 2. One respondent felt that the participants presented the same type of barriers, but that participants with these barriers are closer to work. However, another interviewee said that there were more participants who were harder to help, and also that there was an increase in those with ESOL needs.

In Wave 2, the main differences highlighted by the provider staff interviewed were around the mindset of the participants, with those referred at 6-months reportedly being more motivated, more confident and closer to work than those referred at 9-months; an opinion also expressed by some JCP staff. However, one respondent noted that they felt this was not the case for younger participants, who the respondent believed to present with lower confidence, motivation, and engagement, and that there were a greater number of younger participants since the extension. One other difference mentioned by a few provider staff in Wave 2 was an increase in participants with health issues.

In terms of any change in the level of engagement with the Restart Scheme, there was no consistent pattern reported across Wave 1 and Wave 2 interviews with provider staff. Some provider staff, in both waves, reported no noticeable change in the level of engagement, or felt unable to comment. Several respondents felt that those referred at 6-months were more engaged than those referred at 9-months. Speculative reasons given for this were that participants were closer to work and know the value of work, a greater fear of sanctions at 6-months, a more dismissive attitude in participants referred at 9-months, and participants engaging more because JCP is setting a higher expectation. Conversely, some provider staff in Wave 1, and one in Wave 2, felt that engagement was worse since the extension, suggesting this was due to an increase in participants with health issues, fit notes, or ESOL needs, or the higher number of younger participants where there are issues of anxiety and poor motivation. One interviewee in Wave 2 said that, although engagement with Restart providers was good, participant anxiety around meeting and dealing with employers meant engagement with employers was not as good.

Who is Restart most or least effective for?

When asked which groups of participants or which barriers the Restart Scheme is most and least effective for, there were some common responses across waves and between JCP staff and provider staff, although there were also areas of difference.

Health Conditions

Issues around health conditions was the most mentioned barrier, with several JCP staff and provider staff in each wave saying that Restart was least effective in supporting participants in this group. Though, there were conflicting responses from a few provider staff in Wave 1 who though that Restart can help anyone with the right mindset, and a couple of provider staff in Wave 2 who thought that Restart was effective for those with mental health issues specifically.

JCP staff in Wave 1 suggested that the Work and Health Programme had been better suited to these participants but, since that had been discontinued, Restart was the only provision available for participants to be referred to. Also raised as a concern was the fluctuating nature of health conditions, potentially resulting in participants becoming ineligible mid-programme or making the programme less effective. The high level of participants with health conditions in Work Coaches’ caseload was also noted.

Some provider staff in Wave 1 suggested that claimants on the Work Capability Assessment journey should not be referred to Restart as they were likely to leave the programme when their WCA came through (an issue also highlighted by both JCP staff and provider staff the referrals section). Furthermore, one provider staff interviewed in Wave 1 made criticism of the fit note process, as this tells people that they cannot work while the Restart Scheme aims to show that they can.

To increase the effectiveness of the Restart Scheme for those with health conditions, JCP staff suggested the provision of physiotherapy, counselling, or specialist mental health support through the provider, and a greater awareness amongst JCP and provider staff on how to help those with mental health issues. Some provider staff interviewed in Wave 1 also thought that providing private counselling through Restart could help some participants back into employment.

ESOL

According to several JCP staff across the two waves of interviews, Restart was less effective for participants with ESOL as a barrier to work. To make Restart more effective for these participants, suggestions from some JCP staff included more intensive ESOL support, making ESOL classes mandatory, requiring a higher level of English language proficiency before being referred to Restart, and ensuring that providers made translators available for all appointments.

Opinion was more mixed for provider staff in Wave 1, with some saying that Restart was ineffective for ESOL participants while others thought that Restart could help ESOL participants move closer (if not into) work. For provider staff interviewed in Wave 2, however, Restart was seen as less effective for ESOL participants, when this group was mentioned. Increased and more intensive ESOL support that effectively measures proficiency level and progress were improvements proposed by some provider staff.

It must be noted that ESOL support can vary substantially between providers and areas in terms of intensity and length which could affect the views of respondents on this topic. However, this research did not inquire about the extent of support in the areas covered so we cannot draw conclusions in this regard.

Mindset and Closeness to Work

In Wave 2, some JCP staff and provider staff said that Restart was more effective when participants were motivated, had fewer complex issues, were closer to the job market, and were well engaged. One respondent emphasised the level of participation as being an important factor in how effective Restart is, and that focussing on the participants’ preferred job interest was key to motivating those who are not well engage to do so. Further to this, some provider staff in Wave 1 felt that Restart could be particularly effective in changing the mindset of participants whose barriers were around motivation and understanding the value of work. However, one provider in Wave 2 mentioned that Restart is less effective for participants who are very long-term unemployed, where mindset is a barrier to work.

Childcare

Childcare needs were highlighted as a barrier for which Restart is less effective at supporting by some JCP and provider staff in Wave 1 and also by provider staff in Wave 2. Although one provider staff interviewed in Wave 2 reported that their provider had done a lot of work with single parents and that this had been very effective. Where this barrier was mentioned by providers in Wave 1, it was suggested that the difficulties were due to a paucity of childcare service available in the local area, and that more childcare availability would serve to make Restart more effective for these participants. Meanwhile, one provider staff member in Wave 2 cited the time constraints around school attendance limiting participants’ work availability. Another provider staff in Wave 2 said that Restart referral should only be offered to participants with children once the youngest child is in school.

Homelessness and housing issues

Two provider staff said that helping participants with housing issues was difficult. In particular, both respondents highlighted that the rules in some supported accommodation require occupants to pay rent or to leave once they start working over a certain number of hours, which acts as a disincentive to work for participants in this situation.

Restart provision through outreach sites

One provider staff member in Wave 2 who worked in an area providing Restart through an outreach site felt this mode of delivery made the programme less effective for participants. The respondent suggested that the lower frequency of sessions available at these sites and fewer opportunities for face-to-face meetings put these participants at a disadvantage compared to those attending main sites.

People with learning difficulties

One provider staff member in Wave 2 mentioned that they had experienced positive results on Restart with people with learning difficulties through providing additional support, such as specific courses and spending more one-to-one time with participants, or by signposting to other appropriate support in the area.

Young People

Two provider staff said that the Restart Scheme was effective for younger participants, with one suggesting that young people have a willingness to undergo training or retraining. However, one provider staff member in Wave 1 felt that younger participants showed less interest in the programme, which the respondent felt was due to the younger participants’ belief that the Restart Scheme could not help them; this made them more difficult to help.

On the other hand, Restart was said to be more effective for people with learning difficulties and young people, each by one provider staff member in Wave 2.

In Wave 1 interviews, some JCP staff and provider staff mentioned the need for more tailored support, such as specialist provisions for mental health or digital support for those less abled, with some provider highlighting the need for clear and consistent support between JCP and providers. Meanwhile, several JCP staff in Wave 2 noted that it was a decision for the individual provider as to the support they choose to offer to help these groups of participants.

Two provider staff interviewed in Wave 2 emphasised that individual differences were the most important factor contributing to the effectiveness of Restart, rather than any particular group or barrier to work.

3.3 Provider Changes to Support

Provider staff were asked about changes that their organisation had made to their support offer since the extension, in particular to account for any possible differences in the nature of support required due to the wider eligibility or to account for certain characteristic groups or barriers. This section covers their responses.

When asked what changes, if any, their organisation had made to their Restart support offer since the extension, most provider staff in both waves were able to identify positive changes, with only two respondents in each wave saying there had been no or minimal change. However, it was unclear which of the changes mentioned had been made since the Restart Scheme extension; as several provider staff in Wave 2 highlighted, the nature of the support offered is fluid and frequently changing.

Some Provider staff in Wave 1 had noticed an increase in resources, in terms of staff numbers, available provision, and site facilities, which had allowed them to better tailor support and increase access to sessions. One respondent gave the example of facilitating jobs clubs and sessions dedicated to job search, which they said was exemplified by the provider’s good relationships with local employers. Another respondent cited CV building, interview practice and self-learn modules to help claimants in their first days at work, which was reported to have been well received by participants. Two provider staff expressed a willingness to further expand support to improve the offer to participants with health conditions and ESOL participants.

Although many of the provider staff in Wave 1 were positive about the changes to the support offer, two respondents raised concerns around capacity and an increase in demand. One respondent felt that there had been a significant increase in referrals resulting in an increase in the workload of providers to ensure participants were receiving tailored support. Another respondent stated that increasing demand was leading to a backlog for participants being able to access some support such as workshops, although increasing resources had helped with this.

Provider staff in Wave 1 were asked if there had been changes to the support offer focussed on certain groups of participants (e.g. highly skilled or age group) or to account for the introduction of participants who had been out of work for a shorter period of time. Although some respondents reported no changes, several provider staff were able to identify focussed support. Two respondents mentioned the use of specialist provision for highly skilled participants and for some participants with health issues. Age focussed support and sessions were mentioned by three participants, for example for over 50s and under 25s. One interviewee said that their offer was making sure that provision and employer engagement was available for participants who had been out of employment for a shorter period of time.

Several provider staff in Wave 2 also identified changes to the support offer tailored to specific groups. Some of these changes were similar to those identified by provider staff in Wave 1, for example specific courses and sessions aimed at over 50s or 18 to 25-year-olds. Several respondents cited increased provision for ESOL participants, including more ESOL courses and procurement of learning resources, therapy sessions, communication cafes, and a construction course specifically for ESOL participants. For highly skilled and high-salaried participants, one interviewee said that their provider offered executive coaching, and another respondent mentioned that there was a specialised pathway called ‘Restart Blue’ to support these participants. Two provider staff mentioned that they offered specialist provision from external companies, one provider said for neurodivergent people and the other for mindset training for participants who were not ready to work. One interviewee mentioned that their support offer had five tailored pathways for different participant groups, which they broadly outlined as ‘furthest from work’, ‘ready for work but need upskilling’, ‘ready for work’, ‘graduates’, and ‘self-employed’. Although these focussed provisions were identified, several provider staff in Wave 2 noted that support was tailored primarily on an individual participant basis.

In addition to changes to focussed support, some provider staff in Wave 2 said that the general support offer was frequently evolving to introduce new provisions to help support participants. Several provider staff gave examples of these changes, including sessions to help participants’ wellbeing, access to local skills courses, and the use of AI for interview training.

3.4 Duration of Programme and Frequency of Sessions 

JCP staff and provider staff interviewed in Wave 1 (only) were asked to comment on the appropriateness of the length of duration for participation on the programme being at 12 months, and about the frequency with which participants attend sessions with the provider.

Duration of programme

Most JCP staff, interviewed in Wave 1, thought that the 12-month programme duration was appropriate for the majority of participants, and some thought that making the scheme longer would not change participant outcomes. However, there was general consensus that the length of the programme should be dependent on the individual and considered on a case-by-case basis. For instance, several respondents suggested that some participants with certain barriers to work such as health conditions or ESOL could benefit from longer on the programme, while others such as those who have not been out of work for long may require less time. One respondent suggested that they felt that there was a balance between effectiveness of the programme and keeping participants sufficiently engaged for the duration and that 12-months was best to achieve this. Another respondent proposed that there should be more intensive support from 6 months into the scheme, especially for those who have been unemployed for a long time, which could help to reduce the necessary duration of the scheme.

Provider staff in Wave 1 had mixed views on the duration of the programme. Similarly to the JCP staff interviewed, many provider staff said that the duration of the programme should vary according to the individual participants’ circumstances and barriers. Many provider staff felt that 12 months is fine for participants with little to no barriers. However, some said that participants may benefit from more time, such as those with a health condition or ESOL needs. One respondent felt that professionals who have experience in senior roles or have industry specific skills may also need longer, as there it is difficult to find similar work and the application and interview processes for these roles can take more time. For those with complex barriers to work, two provider staff did mention that their offer included a voluntary 6-months of additional support available to participants.

One provider staff member felt that for individuals who are not close to the labour market (for example, those with long-term sickness) a time-bound programme may not be useful and that a different employability scheme would be more appropriate. Furthermore, some provider staff felt it was hard to support disengaged participants and that no amount of additional time would make them more likely to engage.

Frequency of appointments

During their time on the Restart, participants are expected to attend regular appointments with their provider employment advisor, either in-person over by phone, to discuss their support and progress. This section outlines the views of JCP staff and provider staff on the frequency of these appointments.

JCP staff, interviewed in Wave 1, reported that the frequency of appointments participants had with their provider advisor varied; some stated that they sessions are weekly, while others said that they were held fortnightly. Despite this, most reported that the frequency was appropriate, with regular appointments being seen as good for accountability. However, some respondents reported that some of these appointments were over the phone but that increasing the number of face-to-face appointments would be beneficial, as face-to-face was believed to be more effective (although, there was no elaboration as to why they felt this was the case).

Many JCP staff said that the frequency of appointments participants had with their provider adviser should be tailored to the individual based on their specific circumstances. For example, one respondent said that single parents and those living rurally may be expected to be seen face-to-face less, whilst another interviewee suggested that it may be beneficial for those with low confidence or those who are disengaged to be seen more frequently. No JCP staff reported noting any difference in frequency of appointments for participants since the change in eligibility with the extension, and there was a view from many that there should not be a difference as all participants would benefit from the same level of support.

Provider staff, in Wave 1, reported that the frequency of their appointments with participants were most commonly either weekly or fortnightly, although many noted that participants would likely be attending sessions with the provider in between and may be present several times per week. It was also noted by some that the frequency of appointments did vary according to an individual participant’s circumstances, and one respondent highlighted that participants were able to request ad hoc appointments between those that were regularly scheduled. Childcare and participant mindset were given as examples of potential reasons for a reduced frequency of appointments, while one respondent noted that they tended to see those closer to the labour market more frequently.

Some provider staff mentioned that participant demand and the availability of provider staff to meet it were also a factor in determining appointment frequency, for example one respondent said that they would like to see participants more often but that they did not have sufficient time. In addition, it was noted by one provider staff member that it was necessary to consider that participants are also required to attend appointments at JCP, meaning that they may have several appointments during the week. Another respondent suggested that the length of each appointment may be required to vary according to the individual, for example ESOL participants may need longer appointments.

As with JCP staff, most provider staff did not generally see a difference in appointment frequency required since the changes in eligibility criteria, although one respondent did say that those referred at an earlier point may be more open to contact.

3.5 Frequency of Work Search Reviews

Participants on the Restart Scheme are required to hold regular Work Search Reviews (WSR) with their JCP Work Coach. The frequency of these appointments was fortnightly, but this was changed to monthly. Although this change was not made as part of the extension, per se, it was introduced at the same time, so JCP staff were asked about their views on this change as part of the research. The findings showed views were mixed.

Most JCP staff in Wave 2 interviewed felt that the move to monthly was positive. The reasons given were, that it makes the Restart provider the main point of contact, that the provider was able to give more time to claimants than at JCP and that monthly frequency give claimants more time to complete tasks agreed with providers. Conversely, some JCP staff in Wave 2 said that fortnightly was better, as they believed it meant they were better able to deal quickly with issues, such as non-attendance, and that they were able to ensure that claimants were making a consistent effort to complete required tasks.

Across both waves, several JCP staff mentioned that the best frequency for Work Search Reviews was dependent on the individual claimant, with some benefitting from greater support than others, and several respondents did report having increased WSR frequency for some of their claimants feeling it was helpful to do so. Some respondents in Wave 1 felt that more regular meetings with the JCP would tackle participant disengagement better.

In addition, some JCP staff in Wave 1 stated they were seeing participants more regularly than monthly due to steers from local JCP management, and two JCP staff in Wave 2 (from two different sites) commented that their site had reverted to fortnightly WSRs as standard.

When JCP staff in Wave 1 were asked if monthly WSRs affected participants’ progress or rates of movement into work, some said these meetings do not have any effect. However, it was noted by one respondent that these meetings do not negatively affect claimant progression. One JCP staff member mentioned progression and movement into work is dependent on the individual’s mindset and their desire to engage rather than frequency of WSRs.

3.6 Completer Summary

One of the changes introduced as part of the Restart Scheme extension was the addition of the Completer Summary. The Completer Summary is a document that includes participant information around their current readiness or barriers to work, their activities undertaken during their time on the programme, and any other information deemed relevant. This is intended to be completed collaboratively by the Restart provider advisor and the participant alongside the final Action Plan ^{[footnote 6]}, for participants who are returning to JCP for support at the end of the full 12-months on the Restart scheme. The purpose of the document is to provide more in-depth information from the provider to the JCP staff to better inform the next steps for support for the claimant. This section explores opinions of the interviewed JCP staff and provider staff on the Completer Summary and how it works in practice.

Awareness and experience of Completer Summary

Of the JCP staff members interviewed in Wave 1, only one had experience of conducting any Claimant Commitment Reviews (CCRs)^{[footnote 7]}, in which there was a discussion about a Completer Summary. However, many were aware of the aims of the Completer Summary to provide information on the current circumstances of the participant and what support they had received while on the Restart Scheme.

The level of experience of conducting Claimant Commitment Reviews with participants returning to JCP from the Restart Scheme was more common amongst JCP staff interviewed in Wave 2, although there was still a range in the level of experience from two staff with no experience, through to those staff with minimal or some experience, and up to one respondent who said they had recently conducted around two CCRs per week. Of those with experience of conducting CCRs, most reported that they do ask to see a copy the participant’s Completer Summary, and one preferred to ask for a verbal summary but had seen Completer Summaries. One respondent was not aware of the Completer summary by name but recognised it by description and believed that Completer Summaries were not being requested by Work Coaches, and one interviewee had no awareness of the Completer Summary at all.

Some JCP staff noted that they were dependant on the customer being able to produce their Completer Summary when asked and that often the customer could not. This would therefore be a limiting factor on the number of Completer Summaries JCP staff had seen. This point is discussed further in the ‘Issues with the Completer Summary process’, later in this section. Among provider staff, few of those interviewed in Wave 1 had experience of producing a Completer Summary, although by Wave 2 most provider staff interviewed said that they had had experience. Of those who had experience across both waves, most were aware that the aims of the Completer Summary were to document a summary of the participant’s journey and activities during their time with the Restart provider, their current situation and existing barriers, in order to be passed to JCP Work Coaches to inform future support for the participant. One interviewee in Wave 2 suggested that the Completer Summary process had the further benefit of highlighting the link between the Restart provider and JCP to the participant. Several provider staff in Wave 2 highlighted that Completer Summaries were completed collaboratively between the participant and their advisor and must be agreed and signed by the participant.

Provider staff in both waves were asked to describe the meetings between providers and participants in which the Completer Summary is discussed (identified as ‘exit review meetings’ by provider staff in Wave 2). In both waves, a number of topics covered in the meetings were commonly mentioned by respondents; activities completed by the participant while on the Restart Scheme; areas of progress; the current situation of the participant and any possible remaining barriers; and possible next steps.

Across both waves, most provider staff with experience of the Completer Summary said that it is given or offered to the participant as a hard copy, via email, or both, according to the preference of the participant. Two respondents in Wave 2 said that they had given explicit instruction to the participant to show the Completer Summary to their JCP Work Coach, and a further two reported that they usually emailed a digital copy directly to the Work Coach.

Usefulness of Completer Summaries

When asked, several JCP staff in both waves felt that the Completer Summary, or the concept of the Completer Summary, was useful as a way of seeing what participants have done on the programme and as a guide to the possible next steps and any further support required for the participant. Only one JCP staff member (in Wave 2) expressed uncertainty about the usefulness of the Completer Summary, pointing to the variability of the detail provided and suggesting that a consistent standard would be a helpful improvement. One JCP staff member said that the usefulness was dependant on the level of engagement of the participant.

In terms of the information about the participant’s time on Restart that is included in the Completer Summary, JCP staff across both waves identified similar areas that they would find most useful. These included:

a summary of courses or training attended
any qualifications gained
whether the participant has a CV
work search activity
job applications made
funded support provided (e.g. computer or mobile phone)
participant attendance record
suggested next steps

In Wave 2, JCP staff gave mixed responses as to whether they received sufficient information through the current Completer Summary process. Some JCP staff said that the information was sufficient, while a couple reported specifically that Completer Summaries contained insufficient detail. A few respondents mentioned that they would find some form of personal opinion from the Restart advisor useful, such as the latter’s view on the reasons that the participant has not gained employment or on the participant’s individual strengths and weaknesses. On the latter point, some JCP staff said that it would be useful to receive information directly from the provider rather than via the customer in cases where information could be perceived negatively by the customer, for example if the provider staff had concerns about the customer’s engagement.

Most provider staff interviewed in Waves 1 and 2 stated that that the Completer Summaries were useful. Several respondents mentioned that it was useful for the participant, in order to reflect on their time on the scheme, as a measure of progress and to appraise their current situation. Some Wave 1 interviewees mentioned that being able to evidence progress to the participant was particularly useful for those who had not managed to get a job while on the scheme, to show the benefit they had gained from participating. It was also suggested by a few provider staff in Wave 2 that the summary provided useful information for the JCP Work Coach to see what the participant has done on the programme and to inform further support. In addition, one respondent said it was a useful tool to reinforce the link between the Restart provider and the JCP to the participant. One respondent in Wave 1 said the standardised online format of the Completer Summary was an improvement on the previous paper-based report that their organisation had used previously, as the online Completer Summary could be used by participants and Work Coaches and safely stored.

A few provider staff in Wave 2 mentioned that the engagement level of the participant can affect how useful the Completer Summary is. If participants attend their exit review, allowing staff to go through the Completer Summary with them then it is useful. However, participants sometimes do not attend their exit review, leaving the advisor to fill out the Completer Summary in their absence, which makes the process less useful.

Only one provider staff member in Wave 2 felt that the Completer Summary was not useful, in its current form, because they had no way of following up on whether the suggested next steps had been taken forward by the participant and their JCP Work Coach. They suggested that a three-way call with the Work Coach while the participant was still on the scheme would be more beneficial than the current Completer Summary process. Another respondent in Wave 2 said that, although they thought the Completer Summary was useful overall, it was not useful for the participant, for whom it was only a recap of what they already know, nor the provider advisor, for whom it is seen only as an additional administrative task.

Some provider staff in Wave 1 noted that the Completer Summary was not necessarily key to information sharing, as these staff reported having good relationships with JCP staff and already shared information. Although, one JCP staff member in Wave 1 said the Completer Summary had a positive impact on the communication between the JCP and the provider, as it allowed both parties to be on the same page.

Issues with the Completer Summary process

Although many interviewees expressed the view that the Completer Summary document could be a useful tool, doubts were raised by several of the JCP staff and provider staff interviewed as to whether the process was working well enough in practice.

Several JCP staff in Wave 2 noted that the number of participants who were able to produce their Completer Summaries when asked was low. According to respondents, the reasons participants had not been able to produce their Completer Summary included that the participant had forgotten it, that the participant said they had not received a Completer Summary from the provider, and due to participant disengagement. One interviewee expressed the belief that some participants who did not provide a Completer Summary did not do so due to their concern that negative contents would lead to sanctions, even though the interviewee said that sanctioning for this reason was unlikely.

Among provider staff interviewed in Wave 2, several respondents mentioned that participant engagement with the Completer Summary process was poor. One respondent estimated that more than half of participants show no interest in the process at all, and another suggested that it was better not to tell the participant that the appointment was a completer session to improve the chances of attendance. In the case of non-attendance by a participant, provider staff reported that advisors would fill the Completer Summary out in the absence of the participant who would then receive a copy by email. As mentioned in the previous subsection, some provider staff said positive engagement by the participant in going through the Completer Summary was important for the process to be useful.

In addition to participant engagement in the process of completing the Completer Summary, several provider staff raised doubts as to whether the Completer Summary is received by the Work Coach, due to the reliance on the participant to pass it on. Furthermore, a couple of respondents thought that the Completer Summaries were not used by Work Coaches, although this belief seemed to be based on the lack of feedback received by providers from JCP around participants’ onward support rather than on any firm evidence that this was the case.

Suggested improvements to the Completer Summary process

JCP staff interviewed suggested possible improvements to the Completer Summary process. Due to the reported low numbers in participants being able to produce their Completer Summary when asked, several respondents across both waves stated that having the Completer Summary sent to them directly from the provider would increase the reliability with which they would receive it. At the same time, some respondents in Wave 2 highlighted the importance of the customer also receiving a copy, as this could help with their motivation.

Allowing Work Coaches digital access to a copy of the Completer Summary was suggested by a few JCP staff in Wave 2. One interviewee suggested that access to the Completer Summary through a mutual online account between JCP and the Restart provider would be a good way to facilitate this. Another mentioned that some participants have low digital skills and cannot access their digital version of the Completer Summary, so allowing Work Coaches to access this would help these participants, alongside ensuring that a hard copy is provided to the participant.

Some JCP staff in Wave 2 agreed that mandating the participant to provide their Completer Summary to their Work Coach would be an improvement that would increase the likelihood of Work Coaches receiving the document. However, respondents expressed doubts that mandation would be possible in practice.

Two JCP staff (one respondent in each wave) suggested that getting more regular information throughout the participant’s time on the Restart Scheme, would be better than one Completer Summary report at the end, for example getting updates monthly, quarterly or at the six-month point. According to the interviewee from Wave 2, this would allow for issues to be addressed earlier and whilst the participant is still on the programme. An additional six-month report was also suggested by one provider staff member, interviewed in Wave 1.

Several provider staff across Waves 1 and 2 also expressed their opinion that sending the Completer Summary directly to the JCP Work Coach would be an improvement to the process. In line with the views of the JCP staff interviewed, some thought that this would increase the possibility of the Work Coach receiving the document, although one respondent in Wave 1 said that this was to allow them to pass information to the Work Coach that may be perceived as negative by the participant. Some provider staff in Wave 2 mentioned that they would like more feedback from Work Coaches around Completer Summaries and whether they were used, suggesting that this was lacking at present.

It must be noted that suggested changes to the Completer Summary mentioned in this report reflect the views of the interviewed JCP staff and provider staff only. No assessment has been made of the ethical, legal, or operational ramifications of any of these suggestions and they are not to be taken as recommendations of this report.

3.7 Handover process from provider back to JCP

In addition to their views on the Completer Summary, which aims to help the participant transfer from the Restart Scheme back to JCP, JCP staff and provider staff in Wave 2 (only) were asked about the wider handover process and whether any improvements could be made, further to those suggested for the Completer Summary.

Some JCP staff interviewed in Wave 2 mentioned that the handover process would be improved if there was more regular communication between the provider and Work Coaches across the 12-month programme, as respondents felt this would help with information sharing and to demonstrate the link between the Restart provider and the JCP to the participant. Two respondents, who worked at the same JCP site, reported that such regular communication was already happening at their site with positive results.

In a similar vein, three JCP staff said they would favour a ‘warm handover’ for participants from the provider back to JCP, either through a three-way handover meeting between the Restart advisor, the JCP Work Coach and the participant, or a face-to-face meeting between the Restart advisor and the Work Coach. The reasons given for this included it being easier to pass information on and quicker to answer any queries and to help the participant with the transition and show them the link between the provider and JCP. One respondent suggested that this meeting would be better held at an early in advance of the handover, for example three months prior, in order to help address any ongoing issues before the end of the programme.

Provider staff in Wave 2 expressed mixed views on how well the handover process for participants going back to JCP worked currently. Some respondents indicated that they thought this process worked well, with one respondent attributing this to the positive relationship that they have with JCP in their area in terms of the Restart Scheme. However, a few provider staff commented that they did not get any information back from JCP once the participant left Restart. According to one respondent, this gave them impression that participants go back to ‘business as usual’ with their Work Coach, and another interviewee questioned whether it indicated that Work Coaches do not discuss the Completer Summaries with participants. One respondent said that there was no handover of participants back to JCP and the participant’s Restart appointments just stop.

To improve the handover process, several provider staff said that they would like more direct communication with Work Coaches on handover through a phone call or a meeting. It was suggested by these respondents that the phone calls or meetings could be three-way to include the participant, or without the participant in cases where advisors and Work Coaches felt it necessary to have discussions that may be better for the participant not to hear, for example around issues a participant’s perceived negative attitude or poor attendance. On the other hand, some provider staff believed that phone calls or meetings with Work Coaches would be impractical due to workload time constraints for both parties.

Two Provider Staff suggested that having a more consistent approach to handovers across entry and exit from Restart would be better, to involve the participant’s Work Coach and Restart Advisor in both.

3.8 Local Area

Restart delivery in the local area

In Wave 1, most JCP staff interviewed felt that the Restart Scheme was working well in their local area. Respondents cited good relationships between JCP and providers, providers being able to give an increased level of support to participants, and high delivery outcome figures as factors contributing to this view. In addition, several JCP staff highlighted that they had noticed improvements in the delivery of the scheme in their area, such as changes to restructure and simplify processes in JCP in one area, increased staffing at providers in another, and more support provision by providers in a third.

However, there were some views from JCP staff in Wave 1 that Restart was not being delivered well in their local area, for varying reasons. A couple of JCP staff working in the same area noted that the provider did not have a permanent base locally and was run as an outreach service, which the JCP staff felt limited participants to too few opportunities for face-to-face appointments with their provider. Another respondent felt that the provider in their area focussed too much on participants who are easier to help, in contrast to JCP who would look to help all claimants, and one other respondent thought that offering support through JCP would be more effective than through the Restart Scheme. One JCP staff member in Wave 1 commented that they felt other contracted programmes had been more effective, naming the Work and Health Programme in particular.

JCP staff in Wave 2 gave less mixed views on how well Restart was being delivered in their local area, with most saying that it was delivered well and only one respondent saying otherwise. Although, some JCP staff in sites where Restart was being delivered by more than one provider did mention that performance was variable across providers, with some providing better delivery than others. Among the aspects that were highlighted as working well were regular communication and collaboration between JCP and providers, proactive and encouraging provider advisors, and good provision and local availability of support. In one area, one interviewee reported that the JCP had set up a dedicated Restart team of Work Coaches, which the respondent said worked well as it gave Work Coaches more control over the processes and a more in-depth knowledge of the participants being referred or coming back from Restart.

Although most JCP staff in Wave 2 felt that Restart was working well in the area, several respondents took the opportunity to suggest improvements to delivery. A couple of respondents said that they would like more regular communication between providers and JCP, in order to get more accurate information about what participants have done on the programme and for earlier notification of participant disengagement so that this issue can be addressed quickly. One JCP staff member, who worked in an area where Restart was delivered by more than one provider, said that they would like to see greater consistency of the support offered across the providers to reduce the variable service received by participants.

The only JCP staff member in Wave 2 who did not give a positive view of Restart delivery in their area had concerns about the programme being delivered through an outreach site. The respondent said that participants in the area were missing out on support due to limited available sessions and access to facilities, such as IT equipment, in comparison to those offered at a larger hub site.

Most provider staff in Wave 1 felt that the Restart Scheme was being delivered well in their local area, with some respondents expressing a desire to keep developing their offer. Areas for improvement mentioned were around better communication between JCP and providers and to assess the suitability of participants on the health journey.

Similarly, in Wave 2 most provider staff reported that they thought Restart was being delivered well in their local area, citing positive participant feedback, good job outcome measures, and the good availability of local support and opportunities. Three respondents highlighted barriers or limitations that affected delivery in their area, including participants being further from work in the area, high ESOL needs, high health needs, and the scheme being delivered as an outreach service. However, all three said that Restart worked well, despite these issues.

Two provider staff in Wave 2 were not positive about the Restart Scheme in their local area. One respondent felt that Restart did not have a good reputation, that it was not sold well by Work Coaches, and that job outcomes were unknown. The other respondent mentioned that they worked in an area where Restart was delivered as an outreach service and believed that this meant participants did not get the same level of support as in a main hub, a view that was in line with one of the JCP staff members in the area (as mentioned above).

Local employment challenges

JCP staff and providers in Wave 2 (only) were asked to identify employment challenges present in their local area. Some of the barriers were mentioned by interviewees across more than one geographical location, while others were mentioned only by respondents in one location.

Issues around childcare was the most commonly identified barrier, mentioned by some interviewees across all locations, including the high cost and lack of availability (particularly outside of school hours). Problems with public transport was mentioned by both some JCP staff and some provider staff in the same two areas, with a poor or unreliable transport network and transport timetables that were not well aligned to work hours for some jobs being a barrier to employment.

High ESOL needs in the area and high proportion of people with health conditions were other barriers that were mentioned by interviewees in more than one location.

Some other barriers were identified in one location only, by JCP staff or provider staff. For example, in one location, JCP staff mentioned barriers common in the local area included the high proportion of available work being seasonal, high long-term and generational unemployment in the area, a high prevalence of homelessness, and a high number of prison leavers. Meanwhile, providers in another location highlighted insufficient low-skilled jobs and the challenges of Restart being delivered through an outreach site.

Ability of Restart to meet local employment challenges

Several JCP staff in Wave 2 said that the Restart Scheme was able to meet the local needs that they had identified. One respondent commented that the provider site was well located for access to local services, while another highlighted that the providers were willing to tailor support where they can. However, some JCP staff highlighted individual concerns in their area. One JCP staff member, for example, mentioned that support for participants was dependent on the provider or individual advisor as service quality could vary. There was also the suggestion from one respondent that more support was required for certain groups, such as ESOL, higher-skilled participants, and self-employed, while another interviewee felt that the provider in their area was too reluctant to support participants with travel funding.

One JCP staff member, reiterating a point made previously, mentioned the limitations of running the scheme as an outreach service. This meant participants were missing out on some support and that JCP was having to step in to provide some training that the respondent believed should be offered by the provider but which the limits of the outreach provision meant that they could not, for example JCP were providing digital and IT skills sessions to Restart participants.

Local tailoring of support offer by providers

As part of the design of the Restart Scheme, providers were asked to offer support tailored to the individual but also according to the local labour market, for example working alongside local organisations or employers or taking into consideration local employment needs or barriers to employment.

When asked whether their organisation had tailored their support offer to take local needs into consideration, most provider staff interviewed in Wave 2 reported that tailoring was done according to the individual participant’s needs, more than for the local area. Some provider staff gave examples of tailoring support for individuals, which included support for mental health issues, support for substance addiction, and provision of funding for unique circumstances, such as training for a niche job.

However, two provider staff in Wave 2 said that their organisation did tailor support according to the local area, with one respondent stating that support was tailored for the local area as much as possible. These two respondents gave several examples of this tailoring. One respondent mentioned that that they offered a lot of support for homeless participants, such as training advisors on engaging with housing officers and access to foodbanks and hygiene support. In addition, this respondent mentioned referring participants into to local provision for women who are survivors of domestic violence. The other respondent said that their provider looked to build partnerships with local organisations to offer support for participants, mentioning that they had linked with a local library scheme for provision of free laptops for participants and with a local business which was offering employment opportunities for prison leavers.

3.9 Relationship between Providers and JCP

JCP staff and provider staff in Wave 1 (only) were asked about the nature of the relationships between JCP and providers in their area, with regards to how well these relationships worked and whether anything could help to improve them. For context, each JCP area may be serviced by more than one provider (or only one), and that provider staff are likely to work with more than one JCP site.  

Variable nature of relationships across JCP sites and providers 

Some JCP staff, in Wave 1, reported that the relationship between the JCP and providers did differ depending on JCP site and provider, with some relationships being stronger than others, although some respondents who worked with only one provider did not experience a variation between sites. Regardless of this variability, most JCP staff were positive about the relationships with providers, and several said these relationships had improved over the previous twelve months. Several respondents highlighted that they experienced a positive attitude from individual provider staff members towards nurturing the relationship, which they saw as an important contributing factor to good relationships. Furthermore, some respondents noted that face-to-face meetings with provider staff and the practice of co-locating JCP and provider staff to provide some services to participants helped to build strong relationships with providers. Only one interviewee gave more negative feedback, mentioning that the relationship between their current JCP site was worse than at a different JCP site they had worked at previously. They speculated that this was due to the provider at the current site lacking a permanent site located in the area. 

Similarly, most provider staff interviewed in Wave 1 said that the relationship between the provider and JCP varied between JCP sites, with some relationships reported as being better than other. A number of factors that could affect the relationship were suggested, for example several respondents mentioned that some sites were keener to engage than others and one respondent said that relationships were better with sites that were geographically closer to the provider location. Overall, provider staff interviewed gave more mixed opinions than JCP staff regarding the quality of the relationships between their provider and JCP sites, with several suggesting that relationships were good with some sites but poor with others. A few respondents stated that relationships had improved over the past 12 months, while others said they had not noticed any change. 

Site Visits 

According to several JCP staff interviewed in Wave 1, provider staff did make visits to JCP sites to liaise with JCP staff. However, JCP staff reported that the frequency of these visits varied across sites, with responses ranging from once a week, to once every six months, to not at all. Two interviewees based in the same JCP site gave conflicting estimates, with one saying providers came to the JCP once every week and the other stating that visits were not regular and that there was little interaction with the provider.  

In line with the responses from JCP staff, the frequency with which Provider staff interviewed in Wave 1 reported that they visited JCP sites was mixed, with some stating that they did so weekly and others saying they visited infrequently or not at all. A few respondents mentioned that provider staff did not have the time available to make visits, and one interviewee said that liaising remotely was working well. One provider staff member said that they were aware that JCP staff made visits to the provider’s site, but that reciprocal visits did not happen. 

Suggestions to improve relationships 

Several JCP staff, in Wave 1, said that having provider staff visit the JCP sites more frequently or to work from the JCP site for some of their time would be an improvement. For example, one respondent noted that in some JCP sites the provider will work at the JCP once a week, which helps in two ways as they can conduct their appointments with participants, and they are also available for conversations with JCP staff. 

Some JCP staff and provider staff said that improving communication between JCP and providers would help strengthen relationships between the two. One JCP staff member mentioned better communication regarding participants exiting the scheme, and another around the mandation process, while one respondent mentioned that general communication could be improved. Some provider staff, meanwhile, suggested that having more direct communication with Work Coaches would improve the relationship with JCP and would allow relevant information to passed more easily and more quickly.   

One provider staff said that they would like to see an increase in urgency from both provider and JCP to work together to identify disengaged participants and resolve the issues in these cases. In addition, another respondent felt that the process when a participant has a change of circumstances could be automated, rather than providers advising JCP who then have to obtain the details of the change.  

3.10 Job Outcomes

JCP staff views on effectiveness of the Restart Scheme in achieving sustainable job outcomes

Many JCP staff interviewed in Wave 1 felt unable to assess how successful the Restart Scheme was in achieving sustainable job outcomes for participants, so there were few who commented. One respondent noted that providers were getting participants into sustained work, however some interviewees said that more could be done to achieve sustainable outcomes. One JCP staff member in Wave 1 thought that there had been a drop in participants getting sustained job outcomes since the change of eligibility, due to the nature of the participants going onto the scheme (although they did not elaborate further on the nature of the participants). Another respondent said that, although they considered Restart to be effective overall, they had concerns that many of the jobs that providers were getting for participants were temporary and that participant feedback suggested they were expected to take any job rather than sustained work.

JCP staff in Wave 2 responded with mixed views on how effective the Restart Scheme is in securing sustainable job outcomes. Most respondents felt that Restart is effective and were positive about the amount of support the programme offers to help in this regard. For example, one respondent mentioned that one provider offered a rapid response service, for participants who have gone into work and fallen back out of work, to step in early and to find more suitable employment. Other respondents, however suggested that Restart was not effective in securing sustainable job outcomes or that it could be improved (see next subsection below).

Some JCP staff in Wave 2 expressed the opinion that barriers to job outcomes primarily came from the individual participants, rather than any issue with the Restart Scheme. Two respondents, for example, said that they believed participants with poor engagement or low motivation were less likely to move into sustainable work.

Several JCP staff interviewed in Wave 2 commented that, regardless of job outcome, the Restart Scheme can help to change the mindset of participants and gave them a lot of support to move them closer to work.

In Wave 2, a few JCP staff also raised some issues with the Restart Scheme. One respondent was positive about the effectiveness of Restart but felt there was too much focus from the provider on those who were easier to get into work, to the detriment of those furthest from the job market. Similarly, one interviewee thought that the job outcome figures of the Restart Scheme ought to be considered alongside the fact that the most complex cases are not accepted onto the scheme, which they believed could skew the perceived success.

JCP staff suggestions for improving sustainable job outcomes

When asked what changes could be made to the Restart Scheme to improve sustainable job outcomes, JCP staff in Wave 2 made several suggestions. A few respondents said that greater engagement between providers and employers and increasing involvement of employers in the scheme, including offering more work experience opportunities or apprenticeships, or helping to deliver courses. One interviewee gave the example that their JCP site often had employers come in to engage with customers onsite and that they would like to see providers do something similar.

Better communication between JCP and providers was recommended by a couple of JCP staff. These respondents mentioned that they rarely heard from providers, but it would be useful to get regular updates on participants, in particular to address any issues around non-attendance. In addition, one of the respondents said that improving communication would help to better align the support offered to participants.

A couple of JCP staff in Wave 2 felt that focussed support for certain barriers or groups would help to improve sustainable job outcomes. One respondent said that they would like to see increased support for demotivated participants and singled out participants over the age of 50 as more likely to be demotivated, but who the respondent felt were not well catered for with support on the programme. Another interviewee felt that Restart was effective in addressing most barriers but that health conditions was one area where a better support offer was needed, especially as this was the biggest barrier to work amongst participants, according to the interviewee.

Provider staff views on the challenges of securing sustainable job outcomes

Across both Wave 1 and Wave 2, several provider staff cited that the high proportion of available vacancies being in irregular or insecure work was a challenge to achieving sustainable job outcomes, such as seasonal work, temporary jobs, or part-time and zero-hours contracts. Although, some provider staff in Wave 2 made the further point that they felt these jobs could be used as a positive stepping stone towards more sustainable work. One provider staff member in Wave 1 highlighted that they and their colleagues aimed to focus only on obtaining sustainable work for participants, for example they would not sign participants up to employment agencies where they may be offered less sustainable jobs.

Several provider staff in Wave 2 mentioned that the challenges were often specific to the individual participant and that addressing these individual issues could help to obtain sustainable employment. For example, a few respondents said that some participants did not have the motivation or the correct mindset to seek full-time work. One interviewee suggested that the key to helping participants with this kind of barrier was to establish an individual’s personal motivation to work, for example higher income, and to use that as a focus for encouragement. Some provider staff mentioned other individual factors that could affect finding sustainable work for participants, such as a lack of skills or training required for some roles or the participant’s job preference, with one respondent commenting that participants are much more likely to stay in a job that they are interested in.

More complex barriers to work faced by some participants were also mentioned by a few provider staff in Wave 2, such as homelessness, health issues or problems with addiction. It was felt that for these cases, provider staff could not adequately address the issues sufficiently to help participants get into employment, for example one respondent mentioned that there is little that can be done to help those in need of housing.

A few provider staff across both waves mentioned that having a collaborative relationship between JCP and providers could have a positive effect on the success of finding sustainable job outcomes, with a couple of respondents in Wave 2 saying that receiving unsuitable referrals from JCP affected their ability to do so. One of the latter respondents suggested that having JCP staff visit the provider site to observe the work that goes on and the support that is offered to participants would allow for a better understanding of what is available and who would be able to benefit from Restart, which would help to improve Work Coaches’ decisions on suitability.

One provider staff member in Wave 2 felt that in-work support could help people stay in employment. Although they did not mention whether this was offered, one provider staff member in Wave 1 spoke positively of a dedicated in-work support team at their provider to help participants stay in their jobs, for example by paying for licences required for the role or with personal life circumstances.

Although asked about the challenges of moving participants into sustainable employment, a couple of provider staff in Wave 2 gave examples of cases in which they had a successful outcome. In one case, the respondent told of a participant who had previously worked as a carer and expressed a wish to work with children. While on Restart, she got work as a dinner lady while she trained for a year to be a teaching assistant and has subsequently obtained a teaching assistant role. Another provider staff member gave the example of a participant who had been turned down for a cleaning role due to her low English language proficiency, but the Restart advisors had worked to get her a similar cleaning job with another employer, who agreed to work around the language barrier by pairing her with another experienced colleague for training. The provider reported that the participant had improved her English through working in the job and was now leading a team.

Question 8

4. Conclusion

Accepted Answer

This research aimed to explore some views and experiences of JCP staff and provider staff of the Restart Scheme since the extension of Restart contracts from 1st July 2024, with a particular focus on the changes to processes and broadening the eligibility criteria for participants introduced at the time of the contract extension, while also taking in wider reflections on the programme.

Awareness of the changes in eligibility criteria for the Restart Scheme from claimants on UC for 9 months to 6 months was high and most of those interviewed felt that guidance was clear. Overall, this move was seen as positive by both JCP staff and providers, who could see the benefits of getting support to claimants earlier while they were closer to work and before a potential loss of motivation and confidence. A few interviewees expressed a wish for the eligibility criteria to be extended further to lower the threshold to claimants who have reached 3 months on UC or to include those who are in work but in low-paid or part-time jobs.

Assessing suitability of claimants eligible for referral to Restart was seen as more difficult by some JCP staff. Estimates of the frequency with which JCP staff deemed eligible claimants unsuitable varied from infrequent to common, and while most said that this had not changed since the extension, others said it had increased. Similarly, provider staff gave mixed estimates of the frequency with which they saw participants that they deemed to be unsuitable, however most said the frequency had increased since the extension. The most common reason for unsuitability cited by JCP staff was due to health conditions, while providers said the most common reasons were health conditions, ESOL needs, and the participant nearing retirement. Since participants have been assessed and deemed suitable by their Work Coach prior to referral, the fact that provider staff report that they feel some of those referred are unsuitable perhaps emphasises the difficulty and the subjective nature of these decisions.

Interviewees noted that there was not a significant change since the contract extension in the characteristics of participants or the barriers they face, following the widening of the eligibility criteria. That said, an increase in participants with health conditions was mentioned, with the issue of the increased number of participants awaiting the outcome of their Work Capability Assessment around the 6-month point being highlighted by several interviewees. In addition, some provider staff felt that participants referred at the 6-month point were closer to the labour market and had higher motivation and confidence than those referred at 9-months.

Interviewees reported that the Restart Scheme was less effective for some groups of participants and more effective for others. Several JCP staff and provider staff felt that Restart was less effective for those with health conditions, ESOL needs, and childcare needs, with these participants being difficult to help and the need for more support or alternative provision was highlighted. Restart was seen as more effective for those with less complex needs, who were closer to the labour market and who were motivated and engaged.

On the whole, JCP staff and provider staff believed the Completer Summary to be a useful tool to help with communication between JCP and provider at the point at which the participant left Restart to return to JCP. It was also seen by a few interviewees as helpful in allowing the participant to reflect on their time on Restart and their current situation.

However, many highlighted issues with the current Completer Summary process, in practice. Some providers suggested that participants often did not attend their Completer Summary appointment and questioned whether the Work Coach received the document, either due to the participant not showing the document to their Work Coach or because the Work Coach did not ask to see it. Correspondingly, JCP staff reported that the proportion of participants who were able to produce their Completer Summary when asked were unable to do so. Rather than making the participant responsible for getting the Completer Summary from the provider to the Work Coach, it was suggested that transferring it directly through email or a shared digital platform would be better.

Some JCP staff and provider staff said that a warm handover of the participant from the provider back to JCP, through a phone call or a face-to-face meeting would improve the process. However, others said that they felt this would be too time-consuming and difficult to co-ordinate due to workloads.

Most JCP staff and provider staff said that the Restart Scheme was working well in their local area. Most interviewees were able to identify barriers that were common in their local area, for example unsuitable public transport or a paucity of childcare provision for participants who require these services, but most said and that the Restart Scheme was able to address these issues well. Provider staff interviewed in Wave 2 gave few examples of tailoring their provider tailoring the support offer to the needs of the local area, with most saying that support was tailored to the individual participants’ needs.

Overall, most JCP staff were positive about the effectiveness of the Restart Scheme to get sustained job outcomes for participants, and several commented that the programme was helpful to move participants closer to work in cases where moving into work as not possible or attempts did not succeed. Both JCP staff and provider staff suggested that individual factors, such as participant motivation and mindset, had a strong bearing on how successful Restart could be for achieving sustained employment and that focusing on addressing these issues was key. In addition, several providers identified the high proportion of irregular or insecure work being offered by employers in their area was a significant barrier to sustained jobs. In this vein, some JCP staff mentioned that they thought that greater engagement between providers and employers may improve outcomes.

Question 9

Annex 1: Sample - Job Titles

Accepted Answer

JCP staff Wave 1

Work Coach	5
Restart Single Point of Contact (SPOC)	4
Work Coach Team Leader	2
Restart Lead	1

Provider staff Wave 1

Business Manager	2
Partnership and Integration Manager	2
Restart Work Coach	2
Career Coach	1
Employment Manager	1
Employment Engagement Officer	1
Project Manager	1
Senior Business Manager	1
Senior Employment Manager	1
Senior Job Coach	1

JCP staff Wave 2

Work Coach	7
Restart Single Point of Contact (SPOC)	3
Youth Work Coach	1

Provider staff Wave 2

Employment Advisor	8
Employment and Training Project Lead	1
Senior Business Manager	1
Senior Employment Manager	1
Team Leader	1

Question 10

Annex 2: Interview Topic Guides

Accepted Answer

There were four different semi-structured topic guides in total, one topic guide each for interviews with JCP staff and provider staff for each wave of fieldwork.

JCP staff Topic Guide – Wave 1

Background

1. Firstly, could you tell me a bit about your role at your JCP? 

What is your role? 
How long have you been a Work Coach/Work Coach Team Leader? 
If a Restart SPOC, how long have you worked in this role?

Involvement in the Restart Scheme and Referrals

2. What involvement do you have with the Restart Scheme? 

What responsibilities do you have?

3. Are you aware of the changes to the eligibility criteria in the extension (1 July 2024)?  

Probe: Expansion to those claiming UC for six months and in the Intensive Work Search (IWS) regime at the point of referral. 

Although it has only been a few months, what impact do you think this has had? Do you think the changes have been good or bad for Restart Participants? 
How were you made aware of these changes? 
To what extent is the eligibility criteria for referrals clear?

4. Have you been alerted by the auto-drop to refer someone to Restart, but you have not done so because you deemed them unsuitable? 

Can you explain why the person was not suitable? (Probe: health needs too great, close to labour market, more suited for another programme, very close to retirement (how do you define close to retirement?)) 
If ESOL mentioned, what do you think would be suitable for those with ESOL needs? 
How frequently does deeming people unsuitable occur? Is the frequency different before and after the extension went live?

5. Are you aware of any other changes that have been made to Restart since the extension apart from the eligibility criteria?  

Probe: the introduction of Completer Summaries 

If so, how were you made aware of these? 
What did you think about the way you were made aware of these changes?

6. Are you consistently having monthly WSRs with Restart participants? 

Interviewer note: these were previously fortnightly and changed in August 2023 

Has monthly engagement with the Restart participant affected the support you can give the Restart participants? If so, how?  
Do you think monthly engagement has affected participants’ progress/affected their rate of movement closer or into employment in any way?

Guidance, Processes and Relationships

7. How often do you use the Restart Scheme guidance/spotlight?

Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Never – just ask a colleague if unsure

8. Are you aware of any changes to the processes around mandation and decision making in the last year?

Interview note: From December 2023, guidance and processes changed to remove the option for work coaches to make ‘good reason’ decisions on failure to attend or comply with Restart provider doubts, so now all doubts are referred to a Labour Market Decision Maker for a decision unless it is deemed not appropriate for referral following a pre-referral quality check with the work coach team leader.

If yes, what changes?
What impact have these changes had?
Do you have any suggestions for improvement in relation to these processes?

9. Are you aware of any changes or improvements to guidance around the mandation and decision-making process? If yes, what?

Interviewer note: The process whereby a provider requires a participant to attend an activity, and then if they fail to attend, raises a compliance doubt with DWP. This could lead to DWP sanctioning that person through a reduction or suspension of their benefits

What impact has these changes had, if any?
Have you found this guidance to be sufficient and clear?
Do you have an improved understanding of this process due to this guidance? Has anything else led to improved understanding of this process?
Is there any additional guidance you would have liked to have received in relation to the compliance process?
Has the way this guidance been shared and communicated changed over time? Has this improved / worsened / stayed the same?
Do you have any suggestions for improvements in relation to this guidance or the way it is communicated?

10. Now, I’d like to ask about your relationship with the provider organisation:

If you engage with more than one provider site, does your relationship differ with different sites?
Does the provider attend the JCP? If so, how often?
Has your relationship with the provider changed over time? Is it better / worse / the same compared to last year?
Has communication with the provider become better / worse / the same compared to last year?
Do you have any suggestions for how your relationship/s could be improved?

Characteristics of Restart Participants

11. Do the people you are referring to the Restart Scheme now feel any different to those you were referring before the extension?

Particularly, in terms of people’s barriers?
Have you noticed any particular differences in barriers between the new group now referred since the extension compared to before the extension?

12. Since the extension, are there any differences in terms of the proportion of those who do/do not attend the initial appointment with the Restart Scheme?

Are there any differences in how often compliance doubts are raised by providers since the extension?
When a compliance doubt is raised by the Provider, how do you get involved? (Interviewer note: this should be a DMA decision)
Are there any differences to participant engagement with the JCP you are seeing since the extension went live?

13. Other than what you have already mentioned, are there any other differences in characteristics in participants you are seeing since the extension went live?

Support Offer

14. Are you aware of any changes to the support offer that the provider has made in the extension of the Restart Scheme?

Are you aware if participants find the support offered from Providers is personalised/ tailored to their personal characteristics?

15. Are there specific types of customers, or specific types of barriers, where Restart seems to be more or less effective at providing appropriate support in general?

Which groups? Prompt: Health conditions, highly skilled
For the latter, what do you think could be effective for these groups?

16. This next set of questions are about the length of the Restart Scheme and how often the Provider has contact with the claimant.

Firstly, do you think that the programmes 12-month duration is right for this kind of support? Why/why not?
If not, how long do you think the programme should be?
Does this vary by individual? In what way? Probe: What about for the new group now referred as part of the extension?
How do you think claimants feel about the scheme duration?
Do you think the frequency of interaction with the Provider is right for this kind of support? Why/why not? (Interviewer note: Provider must deliver one to one support at least every 10 working days)
If not, how frequently should claimants meet with the Provider?
Does this vary by individual? In what way? Probe: What about for the new group now referred as part of the extension?

Completer Summary

17. Have you had experience conducting a Commitment Review meeting where Restart Participants returning to the JCP bring their Completer Summary?

Are you aware of the aims of the Completer Summary?

18. If yes, please could you describe what typically happens in these meetings?

What is covered in this meeting? What information do you receive?
How is the Completer Summary shared with you? Online or hard copy?
Do you send a reminder to Restart completers to bring their Completer Summary?
What percentage of Restart completers are sharing their Completer Summaries with you?
Do you think the Completer Summary is useful? Is the information you receive sufficient? What other information would you like to receive?
Do you think receiving this information about the claimants’ time on the Restart Scheme has had an impact on your communication with providers?
Do you think any changes need to be made to this process? If so, what?
What steps are taken if a participant does not bring the Completer Summary to the meeting?

Summary

19. Overall, how well do you think the Restart Scheme is being delivered in your local area?

20. Overall, how effective do you think the Restart Scheme is in terms of securing sustainable job outcomes for participants?

21. Is there anything else that you would like to add that we haven’t had the opportunity to cover today?

Provider staff Topic Guide – Wave 1

Background

1. Firstly, could you tell me a bit about your role at your organisation? 

What is your role? 
How long have you worked in your role?

Involvement in the Restart Scheme and Referrals

2. What involvement do you have with the Restart Scheme?

How long have you worked on the Restart Scheme?

3. Are you aware of the changes to the eligibility criteria in the Restart extension (1 July 2024)?

Probe: Expansion to those claiming UC for six months and in the Intensive Work Search (IWS) regime at the point of referral

Although it has only been a few months, what impact do you think this has had? Do you think the changes have been good or bad for Restart participants?
To what extent is the eligibility criteria for referrals clear?
Have there been referrals to the Restart Scheme which you would personally deem as unsuitable for the programme? Who? (Probe: health needs too great, close to the labour market, more suited for another programme, very close to retirement (how do you define close to retirement)
[If unsuitable participants mentioned], How frequently do you see unsuitable participants? Is the frequency different before and after the extension went live?
[If unsuitable participants mentioned], How do you think you can support these participants?

4. Are you aware of any other changes that have been made to Restart since the extension apart from the eligibility criteria?

Probe: the introduction of Completer Summaries

If so, how were you made aware of these?
What did you think about the way you were made aware of these changes?

Guidance, Processes and Relationships

5. How often do you use the Restart Scheme Provider guidance?

Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Never – just ask a colleague if unsure

6. Are you aware of any changes to the processes around mandation and decision making in the last year?

Interview note: From December 2023, guidance and processes changed to remove the option for work coaches to make ‘good reason’ decisions on failure to attend or comply with Restart provider doubts, so now all doubts are referred to a Labour Market Decision Maker for a decision unless it is deemed not appropriate for referral following a pre-referral quality check with the work coach team leader.

If yes, what changes?
What impact have these changes had?
Do you have any suggestions for improvement in relation to these processes?

7. Are you aware of any changes or improvements to guidance around the mandation and decision-making process? If yes, what?

Interviewer note: The process whereby a provider requires a participant to attend an activity, and then if they fail to attend, raises a compliance doubt with DWP. This could lead to DWP sanctioning that person through a reduction or suspension of their benefits

What impact have these changes had, if any?
Have you found this guidance to be sufficient and clear?
Do you have an improved understanding of this process due to this guidance? Has anything else led to improved understanding of this process?
Is there any additional guidance you would have liked to have received in relation to the compliance process?
Has the way this guidance been shared and communicated changed over time? Has this improved / worsened / stayed the same?
Do you have any suggestions for improvements in relation to this guidance or the way it is communicated?

8. Now moving onto compliance cases and when you refer them to JCP.

How often does these referrals to JCP result in a sanction?
What response do you get from JCP about the result of compliance cases?
Do you think cases where a sanction was applied was appropriate?
How long does it take on average for JCP to process the compliance referrals that you send to them?

9. Now, I’d like to ask about your relationship with the JCP:

If you engage with more than one JCP, does your relationship differ with different sites?
Do you attend the JCP? If so, how often?
Has your relationship with the JCP changed over time? Is it better / worse / the same compared to last year?
Has communication with the JCP become better / worse / the same compared to last year?
Do you have any suggestions for how your relationship/s could be improved?

Characteristics of Restart Participants

10. Do the participants you are seeing on the Restart Scheme now feel any different to those before the extension?

Particularly, in terms of people’s barriers?
Have you noticed any particular differences in barriers between participants in the new group now referred in the extension compared to before the extension?

11. Are you seeing any differences to participant engagement with the Restart Scheme since the extension went live?

Have you noticed any particular differences in engagement between participants in the new group now referred in the extension compared to before the extension? Are they more or less engaged?

12. Other than what you have already mentioned, are there any other differences in characteristics in participants you are seeing since the extension went live?

Support Offer

13. To what extent has your organisation changed the support offer in the extension of the Restart Scheme?

If any changes, why?
If no changes, are any changes planned? Do you expect any changes will need to be made in the future?

14. Compared to before the extension went live, have you made any changes/improvements to the support offer for:

To account for the introduction of people with a shorter claim length (6-9 months)?
Those with health conditions?
The highly skilled?
Older participants?

15. Are there specific types of customers, or specific types of barriers, where Restart seems to be more or less effective at providing appropriate support in general?

Which groups? Prompt: Health conditions, highly skilled
For the latter, what do you think could be effective for these groups?

16. This next set of questions are about the length of the Restart Scheme and how often you have contact with participants.

Firstly, do you think that the programmes 12-month duration is right for this kind of support? Why/why not?
If not, how long do you think the programme should be?
Does this vary by individual? In what way? Probe: What about for the new group now referred since the extension?
Do claimants typically need more or less support after finishing Restart? E.g. claimant needs more support or claimant did not find support from Restart useful
How do you think claimants feel about the scheme duration?
Do you think the frequency of interaction is right for this kind of support? Why/why not?
If not, how frequently should claimants meet with the Provider?
Does this vary by individual? In what way? Probe: What about for the new group now referred since the extension?

Completer Summary

17. Have you had experience completing a Completer Summary with Restart participants at the end of the Restart Scheme?

Are you aware of the aims of the Completer Summary?

18. If yes, please could you describe what typically happens in these meetings?

What is covered? What information do you discuss?
Do you think the Completer Summary is useful? Is the information recorded sufficient? What other information do you think should be recorded?
Do you think sharing this information on a participant’s time on the scheme has had an impact on your communication with JCP?
Do you think any changes need to be made to this process? If so, what?

Summary

19. Overall, how well do you think the Restart Scheme is being delivered in your local area?

20. Overall, how effective do you think the Restart Scheme is in terms of securing sustainable job outcomes for participants?

21. Is there anything else that you would like to add that we haven’t had the opportunity to cover today?

JCP staff Topic Guide – Wave 2

Background

1. Firstly, could you tell me a bit about your role at your JCP?

What is your role?
How long have you been a Work Coach/Work Coach Team Leader?
If a Restart SPOC, how long have you worked in this role?

Involvement in the Restart Scheme and Referrals

2. What involvement do you have with the Restart Scheme?

What responsibilities do you have?

3. Are you aware of the changes to the eligibility criteria since July 2024?

Can you explain what these changes are?

Reminder: Expansion to those claiming UC for six months and in the Intensive Work Search (IWS) regime at the point of referral

To what extent is the eligibility criteria for referrals clear?

4. Have you declined to refer any eligible claimants because you felt that they were not suitable?

If so, what were the reasons you felt that they were not suitable?

(Examples for interviewer, to prompt only if necessary: health needs too great, more suited to another programme, too close to retirement)

Which of these reasons for unsuitability are most common?
How frequently does deeming people unsuitable occur? Is the frequency different before and after the changes in eligibility criteria? If so, why do you think the frequency has changed?

5. What do you think of the policy of changing Work Search Review frequency from fortnightly or weekly to monthly for Restart participants?

Characteristics of Restart Participants

6. How do people that you refer at the 6-month point compare to those referred at 9 months?

Are there any differences in terms of people’s barriers?
Are there any other differences in characteristics?
Is there any difference in engagement?
Are there any differences in closeness to work?

7. Are there specific types of customers, or specific types of barriers, where Restart seems to be more or less effective at providing appropriate support in general?

Which groups or barriers? Prompt: health conditions, highly skilled
What do you think could be effective for these groups?

8. Are you satisfied with the guidance or information you have available to assess whether Restart or alternative employment support would be more suitable for the customer?

If not, how could this guidance be improved?

9. Overall, what do you think about the decision to expand the referral criteria from 9 to 6 months?

Was the expansion a good idea? If so, why? If not, why not?

Completer Summary

10. Have you had experience conducting Claimant Commitment Reviews with participants returning to JCP after completing Restart?

Roughly how often have you conducted these Restart returner Claimant Commitment Reviews?

11. During those Claimant Commitment Reviews, did you ask the customer to share their Completer Summary, which they should have received from the Restart provider?

Interviewer Note: Providers should be providing participants with a hard copy and/or a digital copy of the completer summary to be shared with the Work Coach.

12. Where you asked to see the Completer Summary, roughly in what percentage of cases was the customer able to provide a copy of the Completer Summary (either online or a hard copy)?

13. In the cases where a customer could not provide a Completer Summary, what was the reason given for this?

14. Do you think the Completer Summary is useful?

Does the information provided in the Completer Summary help you to support the customer?
Is the information you receive sufficient?
What other information would you like to receive?

15. Do you think any changes need to be made to the Completer Summary process?

If yes, what changes?
Are there specific topics it should cover?
Should completers be mandated to share their Completer Summary at their next meeting?

16. Do you think we could improve the handover process from Restart provider back to JCP?

If so, how could this be improved?
Would you rather receive information directly from the provider (without the customer seeing the report)?

Local Area

17. Overall, how well do you think the Restart Scheme is being delivered in your area?

18. Are you aware of any common challenges in the local area? (e.g. lack of jobs, lack of transport or childcare services, etc.)

19. How well do you think the Restart Scheme is able to meet those local needs?

Summary

20. Overall, how effective do you think the Restart Scheme is in terms of securing sustainable job outcomes for participants?

21. How could we improve the Restart Scheme to ensure we get more sustainable job outcomes?

22. Is there anything else that you would like to add that we haven’t had the opportunity to cover today?

Provider staff Topic Guide – Wave 2

Background

1. Firstly, could you tell me a bit about your role at your organisation? 

What is your role? 
How long have you worked in your role?

Involvement in the Restart Scheme and Referrals

2. What involvement do you have with the Restart Scheme? 

How long have you worked on the Restart Scheme?

3. Are you aware of the changes to the eligibility criteria since July 2024? 

Reminder: Expansion to those claiming UC for six months and in the Intensive Work Search (IWS) regime at the point of referral 

Do you think it was a good decision to expand the referral criteria from 9 to 6 months? If so, why? If not, Why not? 
To what extent is the eligibility criteria for referrals clear?

4. Have there been referrals to the Restart Scheme which you would deem unsuitable for the programme? 

If yes: 

Why would you deem them unsuitable?

(Examples for interviewer, to prompt only if necessary: health needs too great, more suited to another programme, too close to retirement) 

Which of these reasons for unsuitability are most common? 
How frequently do you see unsuitable participants? Is this frequency different since the changes in eligibility criteria in July 2024? If so, how is this different?

Characteristics of Restart Participants

5. Do the participants referred at 6 months differ from those referred at 9 months in any way? If so, how? 

Have you noticed any particular differences in people’s barriers? 
Are there any other differences in characteristics you have noticed? 
Are there any differences in closeness to work?

6. Are you seeing any difference in engagement between those referred at 6 months compare to those referred at 9 months? 

If so, in how does their engagement differ?

Support Offer

7.  Has your organisation made any changes to the support you offer through the Restart Scheme since receiving referrals at the 6-month as opposed to the 9-month referral point? 

If any changes: what changes have been made? Why were these changes made?  
If no changes: are any changes planned? Do you expect any changes will be needed in the future? 
Have you changed your offer for any specific groups in this time (e.g. highly skilled, those with health conditions, etc.)?

8. Are there specific types of customers, or specific types of barriers, where Restart seems to be more or less effective at providing appropriate support in general? 

Which groups or barriers? Prompt: health conditions, highly skilled 
What do you think could be effective for these groups?

Completer Summary

9. Are you aware of the aims of the Completer Summary? 

What would you say the aims of the summary are?

10.  Have you had experience of completing a Completer Summary with Restart Participants at the end of the Restart Scheme? 

11. If yes, please could you describe what typically happens in these meetings? 

What is covered? What information is discussed? 
How well do participants engage with the Completer Summary process? 
Did you provide the customer with a copy of the Completer Summary? If so, was this a paper copy or a digital copy or both?

12. Do you think the Completer Summary is useful? 

Do you think any other information should be recorded? If so, what?

13.  Do you think the handover process back to JCP works well? 

14. How could the handover process be improved? 

e.g., would you prefer to send information directly to the Work Coach, or would you like to have a phone call with the Work Coach?

Local Area

15. Overall, how well do you think the Restart Scheme is being delivered in your local area? 

16. Are you aware of any common challenges in the local area? (e.g. lack of jobs, lack of transport or childcare services, etc.) 

17. To what extent is the support you offer tailored to the needs of participants in your local area? 

If support is tailored: 

How is support tailored? Could you give any recent examples of tailoring?

Summary

18.  What are the main challenges in securing sustained job outcomes for Restart participants?  

19.  Is there anything else that you would like to add that we haven’t had the opportunity to cover today?

Question 11

Annex 3: Completer Summary

Accepted Answer

Below is the Completer Summary Table outlining the information to be included, as made available in the Restart Scheme provider guidance^{[footnote 8]}.

Restart Scheme Completer Summary	Provider Response
1. Does the Participant have an up-to-date CV?	yes or no
2. Do you consider the Participant to be ready for work (with appropriate support/adjustments as needed)?	yes or no
3. What support and adjustments would be needed for the participant to work?	Please specify
4. What type of jobs has the Participant been applying for and what sector(s) do they want to work in?	4a: Add job application type(s) 4b: Add sector(s)
5. Has the Participant attended any vocational training?	Please specify
6. What are the top three priority actions you recommend for the Participant to take forward?	1. 2. 3.
7. What are the Participant’s current barriers to employment?	Please specify
8. Any other relevant information	Please specify

Universal Credit (UC) claimants are placed in conditionality groups according to their circumstances. These determine the level of support claimants receive and also the requirements placed on claimants in relation to their UC payment. Claimants in the Intensive Work Search regime are those who are not working and those working but earning very low amounts and are expected to take intensive action to secure work or work more. ↩
Claimants in the ‘Working Enough’ regime are those who’s individual or household earnings are above a certain level (the Conditionality Earnings Threshold, or the Minimum Income Floor for those gainfully self-employed). Claimants in this group have no work-related requirements in relation to their Universal Credit payment. ↩
Claimants in the ‘Light Touch – In Work’ regime are those with low individual or household earnings that are above a certain level (the Administrative Earnings Threshold), but whose earnings are not enough to take them above the relevant individual or household Conditionality Earnings Threshold. Claimants in this group are required to search for more or better paid work but will not have regular meetings with a work coach. ↩
Job outcomes represent sustained employment. A provider is classed as achieving a job outcome when a participant, since starting on the scheme, reaches either cumulative earnings exceeding the earnings threshold (equivalent of working 16 hours per week for 26 weeks at the National Living Wage), or a minimum of 6 months self-employment. ↩
A Work Capability Assessment is used to establish a Universal Credit claimant’s capability to work, for those who have a disability or illness that they feel affects their ability to work. The outcome of the assessment determines a customer’s work search requirements in order to continue receiving Universal Credit (UC) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). There are three possible outcomes; ‘Capable of work’ in which case customers are expected to undertake full work search requirements; ‘Limited Capability for Work’ whereby there would still be some work search requirements; and ‘Limited Capability for Work Related Activity’ for which participants would not be expected to undertake any work search requirements. Customers on ‘Limited Capability for Work related Activity’ would not be expected to participate in the Restart Scheme. ↩
Providers are required to complete regular Action Plans (at least every 20 days) with participants, which should include what steps will be taken to help the participant overcome barriers to employment and into employment. For participants returning to JCP after completing 12 months on the Restart Scheme, providers were required to complete a final Action Plan which the participant were encouraged to discuss with their Work Coach on their return. The Completer Summary was introduced to include additional information and is either incorporated into the final Action Plan or produced as a stand-alone document. ↩
In order to receive Universal Credit, claimants are required to accept a Claimant Commitment, with their Work Coach, which sets out what they will do to prepare for and look for work, or to increase their earnings if they are already working. The Claimant Commitment is based on the claimant’s personal circumstances and is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. All claimants who return from Restart to JCP, who remain in the IWS regime, have a Claimant Commitment Review with a Work Coach as their first point of intervention on completing the programme. Claimants are expected to present their Completer Summary at this review, or Work Coaches should ask to see it if it has not been provided. ↩
Restart Scheme provider guidance – GOV.UK ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Executive summary

Contents

Background

Methodology

Main findings

Acknowledgements

Authors

Abbreviations

Abbreviation In full

1. Introduction

Background

Research Aims

2. Methodology

3. Findings

3.1 Referral Eligibility and Suitability

Eligibility

Suitability

3.2 Characteristics of Restart Participants

Differences between participants referred at 6-months and 9-months

Who is Restart most or least effective for?

Health Conditions

ESOL

Mindset and Closeness to Work

Childcare

Homelessness and housing issues

Restart provision through outreach sites

People with learning difficulties

Young People

3.3 Provider Changes to Support

3.4 Duration of Programme and Frequency of Sessions

Duration of programme

Frequency of appointments

3.5 Frequency of Work Search Reviews

3.6 Completer Summary

Awareness and experience of Completer Summary

Usefulness of Completer Summaries

Issues with the Completer Summary process

Suggested improvements to the Completer Summary process

3.7 Handover process from provider back to JCP

3.8 Local Area

Restart delivery in the local area

Local employment challenges

Ability of Restart to meet local employment challenges

Local tailoring of support offer by providers

3.9 Relationship between Providers and JCP

Variable nature of relationships across JCP sites and providers

Site Visits

Suggestions to improve relationships

3.10 Job Outcomes

JCP staff views on effectiveness of the Restart Scheme in achieving sustainable job outcomes

JCP staff suggestions for improving sustainable job outcomes

Provider staff views on the challenges of securing sustainable job outcomes

4. Conclusion

Annex 1: Sample - Job Titles

JCP staff Wave 1

Provider staff Wave 1

JCP staff Wave 2

Provider staff Wave 2

Annex 2: Interview Topic Guides

JCP staff Topic Guide – Wave 1

Background

Involvement in the Restart Scheme and Referrals

Guidance, Processes and Relationships

Characteristics of Restart Participants

Support Offer

Completer Summary

Summary

Provider staff Topic Guide – Wave 1

Background

Involvement in the Restart Scheme and Referrals

Guidance, Processes and Relationships

Characteristics of Restart Participants

Support Offer

Completer Summary

Summary

JCP staff Topic Guide – Wave 2

Background

Involvement in the Restart Scheme and Referrals

Characteristics of Restart Participants

3.4 Duration of Programme and Frequency of Sessions 

Variable nature of relationships across JCP sites and providers 

Site Visits 

Suggestions to improve relationships 

If support is tailored: 